biofuel

The economic potential for Eucalyptus spp. production for jet fuel additives in the United States: A 20 year projection suite of scenarios ranging from $110 Mg-1 to $220 Mg-1 utilizing the POLYSYS model.

The development of modern high efficiency bioenergy technologies has the
potential to improve energy security and access while reducing environmental impacts
and stimulating low-carbon development. While modern bioenergy production is
increasing in the world, it still makes a small contribution to our energy matrix.
At present, approximately 87% of energy demand is satisfied by energy produced
through consumption of fossil fuels. Although the International Energy Agency (IEA)
predicts that this share will fall to 75%, the total consumption of fossil fuels will continue
to rise, adding another 6 Gt of carbon to the atmosphere by 2035. The consequences
of this increase are worrisome.
Our oceans are being critically affected. Oceans are an important CO2 sink and absorb
26% of the CO2 emissions but due to accelerated acidification and rising sea surface
temperatures, this capacity may be reduced. Never in the last 300 million years has
the rate of ocean acidification been so high. In the last 150 years, acidity in oceans
increased by 30%. The main cause are the emissions from fossil fuel burning, especially
the release of CO2.
Deforestation and land degradation also contribute to increased greenhouse gas
emissions. The world’s total forest area in 2010 was just over 4 billion hectares,
which corresponds to an average of 0.6 ha per capita. Each year, between 2000 and
2010, around 13 million hectares of forestland were converted to other uses or lost
through natural causes. The production of timber for housing or the need to make land
available for urbanization, large-scale cash crops such as soy and oil palm, subsistence
agriculture and cattle ranching induce deforestation. Forests are also degraded or
damaged due to the soaring demand for fuelwood and charcoal for cooking and heating
in developing countries that suffer from low levels of access to modern energy services.
Most of the world’s bioenergy is presently derived from wood burning for cooking and
heating in developing countries. Such traditional uses of biomass are low in cost to the
users, but their technical inefficiency results in considerable health and environmental
costs while providing only low quality energy services. Many countries demonstrate
that a much higher efficiency can be obtained in traditional uses commercially with
sustainably managed feedstock supplies. Since bioenergy systems often operate
at the interface between agriculture and forestry, they are also closely connected to
the planning and governance of these sectors and of policy to conserve and manage
forests. Consequently, interdisciplinary and cross-level or horizontal studies are needed
in order to define the best routes through which achieve a sustainable energy matrix.
Can modern bioenergy make a significant contribution to our energy matrix with
positive contributions to the environment? What are the social, environmental and
economic implications of the expansion of bioenergy in the world? How does expansion
of bioenergy perform in the context of the food, energy, climate, development and
environment nexus? Which are the most significant potential benefits of bioenergy
production and use and how can we design implementation platforms and policy
frameworks to ensure that such benefits are realized and widely replicated? What are
the scientific research needs and technological development requirements needed to
fill in the gaps?
To answer some of these questions, FAPESP BIOEN, Climate Change and BIOTA
Research Programs led, in December 2013, a group of 50 experts from 13 countries
convened at UNESCO in Paris, France, for a rapid assessment process on “Bioenergy
and Sustainability” under the aegis of SCOPE. Background chapters commissioned
before the workshop provided the basis for this international consultation during which
crosscutting discussions focused on four themes: Energy Security, Food Security,
Environmental and Climate Security, Sustainable Development and Innovation.
The resulting synthesis volume has the contribution of 137 researchers from 82
institutions in 24 countries.

We propose a causal analysis framework to increase understanding of land-use change (LUC) and the reliability of LUC models. This health-sciences-inspired framework can be applied to determine probable causes of LUC in the context of bioenergy. Calculations of net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for LUC associated with biofuel production are critical in determining whether a fuel qualifies as a biofuel or advanced biofuel category under regional (EU), national (US, UK), and state (California) regulations. Biofuel policymakers and scientists continue to discuss to what extent presumed indirect land-use change (ILUC) estimates should be included in GHG accounting for biofuel pathways. Current estimates of ILUC for bioenergy rely largely on economic simulation models that focus on causal pathways involving global commodity trade and use coarse land-cover data with simple land classification systems. This paper challenges the application of such models to estimate global areas of LUC in the absence of causal analysis. The proposed causal analysis framework begins with a definition of the change that has occurred and proceeds to a strength-of-evidence approach that includes plausibility of relationship, completeness of causal pathway, spatial co-occurrence, time order, analogous agents, simulation model results, and quantitative agent–response relationships. We discuss how LUC may be allocated among probable causes for policy purposes and how the application of the framework has the potential to increase the validity of LUC models and resolve controversies about ILUC, such as deforestation, and biofuels.

Potential Avenues for High Biofuels Penetration in the U.S. Aviation Market, Supplemental Tableau Workbook, 2016
Emily Newes, National Renewable Energy Laboratory Jeongwoo Han, Argonne National Laboratory Steve Peterson, Lexidyne LLC

Conventional feedstock supply systems exist and have been developed for traditional agriculture and forestry systems. These conventional feedstock supply systems can be effective in high biomass-yielding areas (such as for corn stover in Iowa and plantation-grown pine trees in the southern United States), but they have their limits, particularly with respect to addressing feedstock quality and reducing feedstock supply risk to biorefineries. They also are limited in their ability to efficiently deliver energy crops. New logistics technologies and systems are needed to address these challenges and support a growing bioenergy industry.

The proposed solution put forth by the DOE Bioenergy Technologies Office to address these challenges is Advanced Feedstock Supply Systems. The Advanced Feedstock Supply Systems incorporate densification, drying, and other preprocessing technologies to create a biomass commodity. A feature of these advanced systems is biomass preprocessing depots that format biomass in fairly close proximity to the location of production. However, validating assumptions used to develop these advanced systems is critical.

The Advanced Feedstock Supply System Validation Workshop gathered experts from industry, DOE offices, DOE-funded laboratories, and academia to discuss approaches to addressing challenges associated with an expanding bioenergy industry and assumptions used in the Advanced Feedstock Supply System. The workshop was sponsored by the DOE Bioenergy Technologies Office.

The paper describes an approach to landscape design that focuses on integrating bioenergy production with their components of environmental, social and economic systems. Landscape design as used here refers to a spatially explicit, collaborative plan for management of landscapes and supply chains. Landscape design can involve multiple scales and build on existing practices to reduce costs or enhance services. Appropriately applied to a specific context, landscape design can help people assess trade-offs when making choices about locations, types of feedstock, transport, refining and distribution of bioenergy products and services. The approach includes performance monitoring and reporting along the bioenergy supply chain. Examples of landscape design applied to bioenergy production systems are presented. Barriers to implementation of landscape design include high costs ,the need to consider diverse land-management objectives from a wide array of stakeholders, up-front planning requirements, and the complexity and level of effort needed for successful stakeholder involvement. A landscape design process maybe stymied by insufficient data or participation. An impetus for coordination is critical, and incentives may be required to engage landowners and the private sector. Hence devising and implementing landscape designs for more sustainable outcomes require clear communication of environmental, social, and economic opportunities and concerns.</p>

Understanding how large-scale bioenergy production can affect biodiversity and ecosystems is important if society is to meet current and future sustainable development goals. A variety of bioenergy production systems have been established within different contexts throughout the Pan American region, with wide-ranging results in terms of documented and projected effects on biodiversity and ecosystems. The Pan American region is home to the majority of commercial bioenergy production and therefore the region offers a broad set of experiences and insights on both conflicts and opportunities for biodiversity and bioenergy. This paper synthesizes lessons learned focusing on experiences in Canada, the United States, and Brazil regarding the conflicts that can arise 6between bioenergy production and ecological conservation, and benefits that can be derived when bioenergy policies promote planning and more sustainable land-management systems. We propose a research agenda to address priority information gaps that are relevanLive t to biodiversity concerns and related policy challenges in the Pan American region.

T. Searchinger et al. propose "Fixing a critical climate accounting error" (Policy Forum, 23 October 2009, p. 527). We agree that greenhouse gas (GHG) emission accounting needs to be more comprehensive, but believe that Searchinger's proposal would make matters worse by increasing the complexity and uncertainty of calculations. Solutions must be practical and verifiable to be effective.